Erik Springelkamp

But your units know which one is which, and they will prioritise their targets on the basis of that knowledge. So it is rather unrealistic that you as commander refuse the knowledge of your subordinates. You could split them into two sets, one for red and one for blue, then you can use the one that only applies to the enemy.

They will announce them at six months But they will arrive when they are ready, which is always later then expected.

They both run full screen. I doubt they can each use a screen separately. Aren't both screens part of the desktop?

I don't see any reason not to add the modules. They give the game so much extra appeal.

Probably around the same time as they release the final patch.

The explanation is simple: the game engine uses the actual 3D image to calculate all effects: hit location, sighting, etc. Currently there is no provision for 'virtual' 3D models that are thought to be seen by the units, but not 'real' in the game. So if you see something, apart from a floating icon, it is the real thing. And if it is an officer, you could see that from the uniform if you zoom in, or if he is carrying a radio, or a rocket weapon. So they give that information in the display, otherwise a player going through a lot of effort to zoom in on the model would have more information than the one just looking at the display info. I think Steve said it is on their todo list to create virtual 3D images that represent what a unit thinks it sees, which would add a new level to the fog of war.

It may be that buddy-aid takes longer in Iron mode. I just had a case in CMA where buddy-aid took 3 minutes in iron mode. And it also took some time before it started. Funnily enough, when the team moved on, leaving a wounded comrade behind, because they were in a critical assault, one member started to make a move to give medical aid, but then hesitated and followed the rest. After the action I send them back to take care of the wounded, but then - waiting for it to start and finishing it - it took over 5 minutes.

Could it be a vehicle for use by referees during exercises with live fire?

But that is soo cool!

Exactly. That is why I like it as well.

If you say bridge is a simple game then you don't know what you are talking about. There are 52! / (13!)^4 different possible hands, which is more than 2^40, which is infinite for all practical purposes. Anyway, then you continue to quote the match score for bridge, which is not what I am talking about. Match score is used in a knock out system where teams (of two pairs) play a match of many hands against each other. Again you show that you do not know what you are talking about. I was talking about pair score, WHICH I MENTIONED EXPLICITLY, which is suitable for a tournament where many pairs play the same hand, like in the ROW tournament. Whatever the conditions of a game, if it is a hand of cards, or a CM scenario, for scoring purposes you want to know if somebody did better than someone else. That is what pair score gives you.

So you think it can be done because you don't understand the mathematics? That is also called mumbo-jumbo. I say it can't be done: a special score can be the result of tactical genius or a fluke of luck, and no algorithm can discover that.

Yes, what I said, over-engineered :-).

Hear! Hear!

There are many solutions to that problem, but apart from rounds and pools there is the Swiss system, which couples a player to the next best that he hasn't played yet. Ties are decided by adding the scores of the previous opponents. After a few rounds the best players bubble to the top and then fight it out amongst themselves. There is no scoring system that will discover this effect. That is just the price for playing a game with random effects. You can only hope that it averages out. No, on the contrary, difficult or easy, the system just values them all the same. And there is no need to play the same side each time, as each scenario results in a score for everyone who played it, a score that has the same weight. And it is used every day by thousands of players. Millions each weekend.

There are the floating icons that serve that same purpose and they are very noticeable.

What I am talking about is not the direct score of a played hand - which is the equivalent of the outcome of a battle, but the score in a pair tournament of bridge. Everyone plays a number of hands (battles) Then you compare all results of North-South pairs (allied players) and order them according to score. Worst score gets 0 points, next worst 2 points, next 4 points etc. Equal scores divide up (that is the reason the base score is an even number, that way you can always divide without fractions). In the same way you can compare all East-West pairs (axis players). Highest total score - over all battles played - wins. You can still fiddle with the system regarding who plays against who on what side in what round.

I am convinced that you guys thoroughly over-engineer this scoring mechanism. I mentioned the bridge scoring technique before, and I am still thinking that that will give you exactly what you want, using just rank numbers for both sides. Bridge is a serious competition with millions of players world-wide and tournaments often involve large amounts of price money. They wouldn't put up with an unfair system. And it has exactly the same aspects as a CM tournament, with unbalanced sides, and the same scenario (hand) played by many players.

But technically it is the same as a module, isn't it?

In CM:BN there seems to be the possibility to attach a unit to a larger organisation for a scenario, so that unit takes part in the larger C2. In CMSF there is no indication of any communication between attachments and the larger force. Does that mean that there is no information exchanged at all between the main force and the attachments, or is there some abstracted top level command that connects the senior HQ's of all parts on a side (if they have a radio)?

So, I generated a lot more Quick Battles, and the setting Mixed/Tank will give you regularly a Mech/Tank force, although mostly with attachments of lots of light forces. But I found that instead of reducing my force by 60% upfront (necessary to create a challenge against a Syrian AI anyway) you can have an interesting battle if you leave most of the available force in the setup area, and go to battle with your chosen part. Setup areas are behind blocking terrain, so those forces left behind will not accidentally take part in the fight.

And of course there are a lot of actual drainage ditches in the field, especially in the neighbourhood of towns. War is not fought just in nature reservations and remote farmland.

I was playing a couple of Quick Battles with Dutch forces against Syrian army, but I am not able to generate a combined armour mech infantry force for the Dutch. It is either tank only, or mech infantry (or some huge force of light troops) (well, out of more than a dozen tries (size large), I got one force with one tank platoon, attached to a mech infantry company. Yet this is an interesting mix, and very common in scenarios, or even the AI opponent, and necessary to cross open space with tank opposition and a town objective. But the option to mix tank and mech is disabled in both tank and mech branches. And mixed branch delivers mostly hordes of very light troops.

You know that the most recent patch has a problem with German Panzerfausts? You should either wait for the final patch, or reverse to the previous, if you want to play Germans.

Great. Now I have a complete set. I love to use them, because now the 3D figures get much more attention during replay. I don't know what it is. From your previous small icons for CMSF, the rectangular vehicle icons all suffered from the same effect on my screen - but the borders were black instead of white. Probably something with the card, by I am curious what is the root cause, and why the Afghan icons don't show it when I don't edit them. I noticed that when I changed the grey filling colour of the headquarters cross to solid blue, and saved again, it showed the white borders, but the original didn't. I will have to do some research when I find the time. I haven't yet succeeded in creating partial transparency with GIMP. The documentation is very sketchy. But for now my modding needs are satisfied.